Raw LLM Responses

I really liked all your talking points here! The debate around AI art has gotten so toxic, its nice to see a level headed breakdown of the pros and cons. I think this is some valid reasons to be worried, and to be sure, there are gonna be people who will use AI art instead of commissioning things, and that'll certainly change the market, but as someone who has fun using Dall-E to generate art for custom Magic cards - a hobby I wouldn't have the funds to do with commissions - its far from perfect, and hasn't stopped me from commissioning art for things like my channel, or D&D characters. AI art isn't perfect. Its good when I just wanna throw vibes into the universe and get something back, and the tools to refine it are there and are cool, but it dosn't beat commissioning an actual artist... and I'm dubious that it ever will. Its getting better all the time, sure... but my phone only ever notices I'm saying 'okay google' to activate voice commands whenever I'm distinctly NOT trying to activate voice commands. Its been years since other automation services like self-checkout lines and automated phone systems were implemented, but they havn't gotten far enough to actually replace humans. Plus, the US courts have already ruled that AI generated art is not valid for copyright, since it needs to have been made by a human in order to qualify as a work that can be protected - which leaves a lot of issues for using it in a professional capacity. Like, even without the legal implications, saying your project is composed of AI art is like bragging that you're using stock photos - it aint that impressive. But if you're using AI art, you don't OWN it. NOBODY can own it. So people can just take that art and use it themselves as well. Its essentially public domain, not YOURS. Plus then you have to worry about the possibility that the AI will spit out a piece that is a bit too similar to one of the images it referenced... and that original artist will see that and sue for plagiarism. Its a bit dubious on how much legal standing there is with that claim, but I think the smart thing would be not to wade into that legal grey area to begin with. Which leads to another moral dilemma that I think is valid to have disagreements on: Is all AI art plagiarism, given the artists of the pieces it uses as its database didn't consent to have their art included? Personally, since AIs give pretty different results most of the time, I'd say no, since its not trying to replace the original work, and I think falls a bit more under the purview of fair use/remixing - you couldn't sue someone for using your art as a reference for theirs, unless its literally a 1-to-1 copy after all, and its dubious that anything would be different just because a robot is the one doing the referencing and not a human. But I understand actual artists having a different view on that since its so much more personally connected to them. TLDR: I think the outrage over AI art is overblown, but there are some legitimate moral and ethical questions out there that I understand people having, and you do a great job summarizing it all! I enjoy seeing actual artists opinions on this, since as a person whos not that artistically inclined, it feels I don't have as much stake in arguing in AI's favor.